A CORRECTION.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1751, 11 October 1887, Page 2

A CORRECTION.

To the Editor of the Star. Sir, — In your isstte of September 27th, I see a letter from Mr. W. Milne, in which a sentence seems to refer to me. He says, after quoting telegrams from Mr. Slier* wood and me about the Patea Harbor Bill : " The action taken by these two mm was well known all over the ' Patea County," by which I presume he meant that I was advocating the insertion of a rating clause in the bill. Any one who reads my telegram without wilfully mis* construing it will see at once the falseness of Mr. Milne's suggestion. 1 said, " Major Atkinson considers it necessary to insert clause, etc., otherwise anticipate* strong opposition." Mr. Milne misquotes by using the word anticipate, which makes all the difference. I merely forwarded' Major Atkinson's opinion, and asked the council for theirs. I was not in Wellington about this bill, and was not in a position to form an opinion about whether there would be opposition or not to it. This ii not the first time Mr. Milne has made this statement and has bad it contradicted, and I did not expect *t this distance of time to have had the old fiction raked up again. I met Mr. Sherwood last Monday, and he told me that Major Atkinson had said that I had joined him (Sherwood) in urging the insertion of a rating clause. I wrote to the Major, and he has allowed me to publish his reply. " I have jusv received your note re a statement made to you bj Mr. Sherwood. Never made tuch a state* ment either in public or private. It was Mr. Sherwood and net you*' that proposed I should insert a ratine clause in the Patea Harbor Bill. Mr. Sherwood said ha would take all the responsibility, but I pointed out to him that the responsibility would be mine and not his. I declined positively to insert a rating clause, al> though I tnought it would greatly strengthen my hands in getting the bill passed, unless the ratepayers expressed their approval of such a clause at pubUo meetings to be held for the purpose of considering such a clause. Signed, H. A. Atkinson. — I am, &c, George S. Bridge. Waverley, October 8. THE OEO COACH ACCIDENT. To the Editor of the Star. Sir, — I have always had a fond delusion chat there was a something existing in the civilised world called " professional etiquette." lam disabused. Some time ago a letter was published in your columns, signed by a medical man, bearing upon the coach accident at Oeo and the decision of one of the Huwera doctors (whichever one attended the sufferers). I presume that professional etiquette prevents nim from auswermg the implied slur. It does not prevent me, not being in the medical profession. I am not at the top of the medical profession in Taranaki, nor am I any wore tuan a third -year student, but I still take an interest in the profession, and I must confess that publishing such a letter as appeared last week or so is a new departure from, the beaten track of courtesy. Another feature new to me is that a dislocation, when reduced properly, leaves any trace after a few hours. Nor is it absolutely certain that the callus is appreciable at the end of six weeks. 1 have seea the col defini formed on a transverse fracture of thebumerusat tbf end of the fourth week (I take the above assertion from notes made in 1868 by myself at Professor Annandale's lecture! on clinical surgery at Edinburgh, Scotland,) and be totally unnoticeabla externally even to an M.D. of Edin* burtrh University, Chicago. This could probably be the case in this instance! unless delayed by predisposing causes, or bad setting. Some surgeons do their work carelessly, make a bad union, and therefore always expect traces to be left. Doubtless, it is usual to be able to detect traces of fractures, but it is not always detectable. — I am, &c.,

T. DA. Hamilton.

[Mr. Hamilton is under a misapprehension. The memorandum was obtained from Dr. O'Carroll, by persons who had very good reason for applying for it, and a right to ask for it. It was published in the Star at their instance, simply in order to show that some statements made by us in connection with the accident were open to question. Dr. O'Carroll wrote no letter to the paper as Mr. Hamil* ton states, nor, so far as we are aware, did he know, when giving the memo* rand u rn, that it was likely to be pub* lished.— Ed. Star.]